Self-control is the capacity to refuse to ingest what you cannot digest.

It is about knowing yourself, knowing your limits.

iambiguous's obsession with identity tells us that he has an extremely poor self-consciousness.

His conclusion that identity is unknowable is a projection of his own incapacity onto the universe.

It is not him who is too stupid to know his identity, who is too weak-willed to create psychological calm necessary for any genuine thinking to being, but it is the universe, the laws of nature, that forbid(s) him to do so.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

Magnus Anderson wrote:And what is this self-control that I am talking about?

Self-control is the capacity to refuse to ingest what you cannot digest.

It is about knowing yourself, knowing your limits.

iambiguous's obsession with identity tells us that he has an extremely poor self-consciousness.

His conclusion that identity is unknowable is a projection of his own incapacity onto the universe.

It is not him who is too stupid to know his identity, who is too weak-willed to create psychological calm necessary for any genuine thinking to being, but it is the universe, the laws of nature, that forbid(s) him to do so.

Well thanks for chewing this over.It's obvious enough that you have not managed to digest what is going on and therefore offer us this vomitus.Might I suggest some virtual Gaviscon?

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint."The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest "A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.These just keep getting funnier.

iambiguous wrote:Here, in my view, is one particular rendition of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism". Applicable to either Religion or to Reason.

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

I like what Carl Jung said - in his "Psychological Reflections" (Awareness and creative living).I think a good response to the above -

"Never in any circumstances should one indulge in the unscientic illusion that one's own subjective prejudice is a universal and fundamental psychological truth. No true science can spring from this, only a faith whose shadow is intolerance and fanaticism. Contradictory views are necessary for the evolutution of any science, only they must not be set up in any rigid opposition to each other but should strive for the earliest possible synthesis."

One can't always help leaning toward or evolving through especially No. 7 but one always has to keep Jung's words in mind, in mnsho.One can change the word psychological to philosophical and it still fits.

"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Where satyr situates his morals is where a bit of an incoherence lies. You will see him say that there is no objective morality, no absolutely correct representation of reality, but at other times you will see him say "I speak of reality as it is".

There is no "objective reality" means that reality is not an object, i.e. it is not static, so there is no objective stance which should be adopted without being processed by the brain (without questioning/thinking.)

When people seek "absolutely correct representations of reality", i.e. "objective truths", they are really only seeking someone to tell them how to live their lives, since they are too cowardly to think for themselves.

iambiguous is of that sort.

He wants to be told how to live his life. He wants to be comforted. He automatically submits to anyone who appears to be confident in his ideas. Metaphorically speaking, he sucks your dick without asking for permission, and if he does not like it, he accuses you of being a pretend "alpha male".

He cannot think.

He cannot tolerate other people's opinions if they are not comforting.

So he falsifies the other in order to make it easy for himself.

Both you and iambiguous have unresolved psychological issues.

You automatically and unconsciously submit to other people.

You have zero self-control.

If you gathered from my post that I am seeking for an absolute representation of reality, then you can't read for shit, kiddo.

Magnus Anderson wrote:When people seek "absolutely correct representations of reality", i.e. "objective truths", they are really only seeking someone to tell them how to live their lives, since they are too cowardly to think for themselves.

iambiguous is of that sort.

With respect to moral and political value judgements [about which the OP is aimed], my argument [here and now] revolves around this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

What I am curious about are arguments from others able to poke enough holes in it so that I might be able to reconsider it as perhaps a less than reasonable manner in which to construe the "human condition" sans God.

Instead, I tend to bump into the abstractionists like you and Lyssa and Satyr -- scholastic sorts who spew out intellectual contraptions that have almost nothing whatsoever to do with the lives that we live.

All I am trying to do is to actually engage your words down here. Why in the world is that something you always avoid?

Again, you can pick the topic.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Magnus Anderson wrote:iambiguous's obsession with identity tells us that he has an extremely poor self-consciousness.

His conclusion that identity is unknowable is a projection of his own incapacity onto the universe.

What I am "obsessed" with is grappling with the question, "How ought I to live"?

And then in exploring the limits of philosophy [logic, language] in providing an answer.

Much of what constitutes my own identity is not unknowable at all: gender, race, age, weight, height, state of health, residence, income, family, neighborhood, nationality, current interests, personality, character and on and on and I. There is much about myself that is clearly true objectively. It has nothing to do with dasein.

No, what fascinates me are those aspects of any particular sense of identity that revolve around conflicting value judgments that revolve in turn around conflicting goods.

Why and how do each of us come to accumulate a set of moral and political values that prompt a set of behaviors that, time and again, come into conflict with others? What experiences did we have, what people did we meet, what information did we happen upon that shaped our values over the years? And, in a world of contingency, chance and change, who knows what new experiences, relationships, knowledge etc, we will happen upon to reconfigure our values and behaviors down the road.

Is there a way philosophically to resolve these conflicts or, instead, must we always resort to either "might makes right" or "moderation, negotiation and compromise"?

All I insist is that when we discuss these relationships our words need to be fully integrated into the world in which we live.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Magnus Anderson wrote:I have already explained this to you over at KTS.

It is you who are avoiding to discuss things because you find them too difficult to understand.

You are trying to force people to speak in a language that you can understand. You are burdening them.

You want to discuss, but without making any effort. You want it all served for you.

I can only try to imagine what it must be like to be inside that head of yours.

Anyway, if the day should ever come when you have enough confidence to test those didactic assertions of yours on an actual moral issue, please do it here.

And, just out of curiosity, can you cite a few examples from your own life in which you walked this talk? For instance, confrontations you had with others over value judgments. How were you able to translate your arguments above into behaviors that reflected the most rational option available to any thinking human being?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Yeah I kinda left you in a difficult spot; try to say something clever, which would be hard to do with what I left you to work with (my bad), or say nothing at all and risk being mistaken for a dim-wit who can't say something witty about a spider.

I think you did the right thing. The eight legs comment was good; you're not trying to keep something going that's difficult to work with. See now I would, and as per usual I would make a mess of it. That's just me: if you look up the word 'obnoxious', there will be a picture of me in the left margin... right margin if you're using a Chinese dictionary.

Zoot Allures wrote:Yeah I kinda left you in a difficult spot; try to say something clever, which would be hard to do with what I left you to work with (my bad), or say nothing at all and risk being mistaken for a dim-wit who can't say something witty about a spider.

I think you did the right thing. The eight legs comment was good; you're not trying to keep something going that's difficult to work with. See now I would, and as per usual I would make a mess of it. That's just me: if you look up the word 'obnoxious', there will be a picture of me in the left margin... right margin if you're using a Chinese dictionary.

You can be obnoxious, and I can be noxious, and we can sing a duet. We may even get a few quarters in our hats.

Static: reality is a static object that is uncovered by the individuals using perception. Reality does not change, it is our sensory organs that fool us into thinking that reality is changing.

Dynamic: reality is flux. Our sensory organs do not uncover reality, they freeze it. The less we freeze reality (i.e. the more we absorb chaos) the more accurate is our perception. The more accurate our perception, the more effective ways in which we can freeze reality.

Public/private reality

Public: reality contains us ( = we do not control reality, reality controls us.)Private: we contain reality ( = reality does not control us, we control reality.)

Objective/subjective mentality

Being objective means judging from the totality of your senses.Being objective means seeing the difference between what you want and what is.Being objective means absorbing (but not becoming) chaos.

Being subjective means judging from the selection of your senses.Being subjective means conflating what you want with what is.Being subjective means freezing (i.e. denying) chaos (which is to say, becoming chaos.)

Being objective does not mean knowing the "objective truth".Being objective means perceiving reality (i.e. being flexible, absorbing chaos) to the best of your ability.

phoneutria wrote:Where satyr situates his morals is where a bit of an incoherence lies. You will see him say that there is no objective morality, no absolutely correct representation of reality, but at other times you will see him say "I speak of reality as it is".He really should be saying I speak of reality as I see it... shouldn't he?

As with most objectivists of his ilk, the crucial point I am trying to raise has little to do with whatever particular behaviors Satyr deems to be moral or immoral, noble or ignoble. Rather it is the manner in which he insists that only the manner in which he insists on differentiating the ubermen from the sheep, reflects the manner in which you are either one of Us or one of Them.

Really, how different is Satyr's spiel from Ayn Rands? You are either at one with her [him] or you are at one with the collectivists [the retards].

From my perspective [and that's all it is], moral and political objectivism is more likely to be a psychological agenda than a philosophical one.

Well, think of it as if it was language. Language develops in a region of the world and is deeply tied to the culture and the people's way of being. The farther you move from a point, the more difference in accents and vocabulary you will see until it's not the same language anymore. However, if a foreigner moves into my land, I expect them to learn my language so that they can communicate with me, not the other way around. Also, languages are alive, they evolve and adapt. I can learn some interesting sounds and phrases from the foreigner if I have a use for them, and if some new phenomena appears, I'll have to create new expressions to refer to it.

There is no such thing as a right language and a wrong language. But it is my language. In my land, I enforce it.It is the preservation of a cultural value in it's own land. The foreigner can call that an agenda and choose to fight it. He will be met with resistance.

How does that sound?

phoneutria wrote:In any case, reality is the ultimate judge of whether an opinion is correct or not. Accuracy is measured by success.

And the reality of success will revolve more or less around "might makes right" or around "moderation, negotiation and compromise".

But this would seem to be so only in recognizing that, in the absense of God, mere mortals have no other recourse. Sans God, how do mere mortals arrive at an actual deontological agenda such that it can be demonstrated that all rational men and women must behave in one way rather than another? Even Nietzsche's ubermen recognized the inherent ambiguities embedded in a Godless universe.

Why must all rational men behave the same? Is there ever only one solution to a problem?

They can either take what they want and rationalize it in terms of a world where the strong prevail over the weak, or they can try to justify what they do by constructing an intellectual contraption like Satyr's. In other words, he feels compelled to justify his behaviors as more than just the brute facticity of might makes right. Instead, what he rationalizes must be seen as the noble and virtuous thing to do. Only he hardly ever brings this down to earth such that the discussion revolves around actual conflicting human behaviors that we are all familiar with. Instead, it's always ascribed in the lofty [and didactic] rhetoric of The Intellectual.

Or, being less kind, The Pedant.

I see what you mean, but why do you think think that there is anything particularly wrong with justifying one's behaviors through reasoning, even if ultimately you are doing something simply because you want to?With Satyr, I find that the problem is that at times what he says doesn't match his behaviors, but I won't speak in detail about that. That would be very indelicate.

phoneutria wrote:If existing is the game, and thriving is the objective, and cooperating is the strategy, morals are the rules. And as rules go, the strategy only works if everyone who is participating agrees to the rules and follow them. If someone breaks the rules, and gets caught... I guess we kick his ass, eh?

Sure. One or another social, political and economic consensus rooted in one or another historical and cultural and experiential context. But from my frame of mind this all goes back to dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Static: reality is a static object that is uncovered by the individuals using perception. Reality does not change, it is our sensory organs that fool us into thinking that reality is changing.

Dynamic: reality is flux. Our sensory organs do not uncover reality, they freeze it. The less we freeze reality (i.e. the more we absorb chaos) the more accurate is our perception. The more accurate our perception, the more effective ways in which we can freeze reality.

Public/private reality

Public: reality contains us ( = we do not control reality, reality controls us.)Private: we contain reality ( = reality does not control us, we control reality.)

Objective/subjective mentality

Being objective means judging from the totality of your senses.Being objective means seeing the difference between what you want and what is.Being objective means absorbing (but not becoming) chaos.

Being subjective means judging from the selection of your senses.Being subjective means conflating what you want with what is.Being subjective means freezing (i.e. denying) chaos (which is to say, becoming chaos.)

Being objective does not mean knowing the "objective truth".Being objective means perceiving reality (i.e. being flexible, absorbing chaos) to the best of your ability.

Static: reality is a static object that is uncovered by the individuals using perception. Reality does not change, it is our sensory organs that fool us into thinking that reality is changing.

Dynamic: reality is flux. Our sensory organs do not uncover reality, they freeze it. The less we freeze reality (i.e. the more we absorb chaos) the more accurate is our perception. The more accurate our perception, the more effective ways in which we can freeze reality.

Public/private reality

Public: reality contains us ( = we do not control reality, reality controls us.)Private: we contain reality ( = reality does not control us, we control reality.)

Objective/subjective mentality

Being objective means judging from the totality of your senses.Being objective means seeing the difference between what you want and what is.Being objective means absorbing (but not becoming) chaos.

Being subjective means judging from the selection of your senses.Being subjective means conflating what you want with what is.Being subjective means freezing (i.e. denying) chaos (which is to say, becoming chaos.)

Being objective does not mean knowing the "objective truth".Being objective means perceiving reality (i.e. being flexible, absorbing chaos) to the best of your ability.

Chaos can be internal or external.Mental subjectivity means denying any of the two types.

Can you fucking believe it?!

If this isn't a classic example of intellectual, abstractionist bullshit!

What in the world are you trying to say here? Hell, you can't even give us examples from your own life, can you?

I can only conclude [giving you the benefit of the doubt] that you are just being ironic here. Your point in fact being to expose just how ineffectual this sort of didactic gibberish can be.

If not, then you're a Kid, right? But then what is Satyr's excuse?

See, now this is the no longer iambiguous I have been yearning for. No qualifications can even be lurking in the background of this. No, possibly my cultural background and psychological make could be distorting my view of this rootlets to be detected. A clearly meant to be objective rejection of even the possible use of his post. You just materialized on the earth! You are now visible as you. A fallible human who exists and believes some things are true and some things are not and we do not need science (only) to determine all of the stuff in those sets. This is being down to earth. It is not down to earth to pretend to be a quasi human in some state of superposition. Welcome to the planet.

Moreno wrote:See, now this is the no longer iambiguous I have been yearning for. No qualifications can even be lurking in the background of this. No, possibly my cultural background and psychological make could be distorting my view of this rootlets to be detected. A clearly meant to be objective rejection of even the possible use of his post. You just materialized on the earth! You are now visible as you. A fallible human who exists and believes some things are true and some things are not and we do not need science (only) to determine all of the stuff in those sets. This is being down to earth. It is not down to earth to pretend to be a quasi human in some state of superposition. Welcome to the planet.

Hey, don't you owe me about a billion rebuttals on the "discussing god and religion" thread? I'm sensing a pattern here....

I have to be honest though: I really don't have a fucking clue [this time] as to what in tarnation you are trying to convey here.

My point [re the OP] is not that individuals either are or are not fallible. Rather it is to suggest that in the absense of God [or your own pantheistic contraption] mere mortals [if they are being honest with themselves] are, like me, entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

But even here I fully acknowledge how this is necessarily embedded in the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods.

And since interpreting them as I do precipitates a rather glum manner in which to construe conflicting human behaviors [and the nature of identity], I am always looking for an argument that might extricate me from that.

Just not yours.

Anyway, it is to escape the "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" that the sacred and the secular objectivists invent their Gods and their "metaphysical" morality.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I can only conclude [giving you the benefit of the doubt] that you are just being ironic here. Your point in fact being to expose just how ineffectual this sort of didactic gibberish can be.

You got me. You are correct, you found it out, I've been lying to you all along, none of my posts are meant to make any sense whatsoever, I've been ironic all the time, it's all lorem ispum bullshit, and don't even ask what lorem ipsum is, cause noone knows. Now I'm gonna post another lorem ipsum, it would be lorem ipsum: the sequel, it won't make any sense, cause there is no sense, so don't freak out, be cool. With love.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

Being objective, then, does not mean knowing "objective truth" or "absolute truth", but making your best guess.

Your best guess is your best guess, not necessarily the best guess that exists in the universe, and certainly not the best possible guess that can be made.

People are different, they possess different information and they have different capacities.

Your best guess may be the same as someone else's best guess, which means that the two of you have certain similarities. It can also be better than someone else's guess, as well as worse.

The quality of guess has several dimensions.

The first, and the most important dimension, is the quality of guess in relation to one's limits.

We are not free to see the world any way we like. We are limited creatures, and so we have a finite set of possible ways in which we can perceive reality.

You can make the best possible guess you can make, the best possible way you can perceive reality. This is mental health.

Or you can make a substandard guess, a guess which is below your capacities. This is mental illness.

The second dimension is temporal dimension. As we become stronger, our standards change, and so what we previously thought to be our best guess now becomes a substandard guess, revealing itself as a mistake.

The third, and final, dimension is the quality of guess in relation to what other people think.

Normally, we feel ashamed when we make, or realize that we have made, a substandard guess. But if we end up confusing what is substandard with what is up to standard, we can be made to feel ashamed for no reason whatsoever. This is what happens when people conflate their own limits with other people's expectations.

A man can adopt unrealistic standard. Unrealistic standard is a standard which does not reflect one's limits. One is expected to perform better than one can, to over-perform, or to perform worse than one can, to under-perform.

To be yourself, who you are, is to act to the best of your ability.This is what it means to develop genetic identity.This is what it means to be noble, to be a gentleman.

The other option, to not be who you are, is to under-perform or over-perform.This is what it means to develop memetic identity.This is what it means to be ignoble, to be a barbarian.

To under-perform is to act below your limits.This is exaggerated humility/shame, or hyper-femininity.Concealed, tamed barbarism.

To over-perform is to act above your limits.This is exaggerated arrogance, or hyper-masculinity.Open, untamed barbarism.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable